Happy Saturday,
And happy Get Out The Vote (GOTV)!
While I’ll certainly be biting my fingernails over the presidential race, I’m also excited that this week will deliver results from the voters on the ballot questions in Massachusetts – particularly Question 1.
In case you missed it, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio released the legislative audit last week that her office was able to complete, despite the legislature’s refusal to comply. Granting the auditor the power to impel the legislature to comply with a full audit is the question that voters will answer on Tuesday.
This audit produced a number of key findings, including:
- The legislature lacks services available to its members – Massachusetts is the only state in the country that does not have a nonpartisan legislative services agency to conduct research, fiscal analysis, and assist with bill drafting
- Despite legislators' claims that they sufficiently audit themselves, the legislature has been late in submitting its own annual financial audits, and did not publicly post the 2021 audit until reminded by the Auditor’s office
- The legislature’s website lacks clarity compared to peer legislatures, making it more difficult for constituents to follow pending legislation
These results already go a decent way to illustrate additional problems with transparency and lack of information in the State House. The auditor implies that a full audit would investigate additional operations, including the process of committee appointments. We’re keen to see what a full audit would turn up – and to see why our representatives are so insistent on resisting it.
If you’ve got GOTV energy to spare this weekend, make sure your friends are voting YES on Question 1!
---
State House Scoop
Legislature cuts budget on beloved SNAP + local farm assistance program
Advocates sounded alarms this week as announcements went out that a popular state food assistance program would drastically reduce benefits due to budget constraints.
The Healthy Incentives Program (HIP) is a state-funded program that provides SNAP recipients (also known as food stamps) extra funds monthly for fresh, locally-grown produce. The benefits, which currently range from $40 - $80 per month depending on family size, will be cut to a flat $20 for all recipients.
HIP was started in 2017 in response to calls to support local farming and provide healthy alternatives for those seeking food assistance. Since its start, more than 263,000 households have participated, directing $63 million in spending to local farms (fact sheet). Farms have grown to rely on these funds for their operations and used them to shape closer relationships with communities seeking food assistance, including planting culturally-relevant crops.
In response to HIP’s success and the growing demand for HIP benefits, Governor Healey requested $25 million in the FY2025 budget to fully fund it. However, the final budget passed by the legislature included only $15 million, prompting these cuts, which both limit the access of SNAP recipients to healthy, local food and hurt local farmers.
Senator Jo Comerford, who represents several rural counties in Western Mass, said to GBH news that she’s heard from many constituents this week about this issue. Her comment? “I am not in leadership in the Senate, so I don’t make these decisions — nor am I in the [Healey] administration. However, I do think there is a general and growing sense, in both places, that there is a great public outcry of concern and that this will be injurious, in the short term, and have potential longer-term negative consequences.”
Man, if the best our elected representatives can do – in the face of constituent outcry – is “I’m not in leadership, I don’t make these decisions,” we’re dealing with a sorry farce of a representative democracy. Just as our electeds are supposed to answer to our vote every two years, the Senate President and Speaker are ostensibly held accountable each year by a democratic vote of their colleagues – but the rank-and-file seem to forget this power.
The HIP program is an example of state policy at its best: using a tiny fraction of our state budget (0.02%!) to structure incentives to benefit two vulnerable populations – low-income families burdened with food costs, and local farmers who struggle to compete against cheaper food imports.
Our legislative leadership found room for a $1 billion tax cut mostly for the wealthy, but not $10 million for a program like this. Unfortunately for farmers and SNAP recipients, that says a lot about our priorities.
Legisplaining example of the week — Senator Friedman on transparency
As you know, I’ve been a transparency advocate for some time now. From Transparency is Power, to the People’s House Campaign, to my current role, I’ve heard all manner of shoddy reasoning from representatives about why the public doesn’t deserve access to their activities. Or further– why public access would somehow… inhibit their activities. Because oh boy, we couldn’t let a thing like transparency disrupt the delicate process that leaves us ranking #50 nationwide for legislative effectiveness, could we?
Anyway– at a certain point, you think you’ve seen it all. But this week saw another egregious example of what we call “legisplaining” on the subject of transparency. I thought it was worth addressing.
The Commonwealth Beacon puts out a podcast called the Codcast, which features weekly episodes on all things #mapoli. This week’s episode featured special guest Senator Cindy Friedman of Arlington. Most of the podcast focuses on healthcare reform, which is a key priority left on the table this session in July and still struggling through informal sessions.
Towards the end of the podcast (19:01), the hosts turned the question “potential legislative process reform,” in light of criticism of the end of this year’s legislative session and broad public support for Ballot Question 1. Senator Friedman touted the Senate’s record on transparency compared to the House, noting (reasonably) that the Senate publishes committee votes and has rules about the timely release of bills. Then, she continued:
“I think that when people talk about transparency, I’m not totally sure what they mean by that.”
“I am not going to sit down and have a conversation in public around a very hot topic in this environment, because I know that with anything I say, each word can be taken out of context and turned into something else.”
“I can’t learn anything in public… We are constantly bombarded with ‘you flip-flopped’… ‘you said you were going to do this but you didn't do this.’”
Well. First of all, when constituents talk about transparency, we tend to be very clear, naming proposals that would directly improve transparency. We want public committee votes from the House! We want more time to review legislation before it’s voted on! We want public debate on the floor! We want bills considered on a roll call, rather than a voice vote, so we actually know who’s supporting it! We want public testimony in committee to receive more weight than back-door lobbying!
Secondly, at the risk of holding Senator Friedman accountable for a public conversation she had on a “hot topic,” everything she describes is part of the job description of being elected to represent the public. Senators and representatives are paid a full time salary to develop opinions and act on issues that affect the everyday lives of residents of the Commonwealth. While we don’t expect every hallway conversation to be broadcast on Channel 5 News, the public deserves to know when those opinions become consequential: when legislation is supported or not supported by our representatives, and why. That’s an essential ingredient to the decision we get to make every two years, to re-elect our reps or not. It’s a keystone of democracy. And currently, in Massachusetts, it’s lacking.
But hey, let’s give a shoutout to Sen. Friedman’s constituents, who apparently “bombard” her with feedback when she flip-flops or doesn’t follow through on a campaign promise! Keep up the good work folks! We could all stand to learn from their example.
With the beginning of the session starting in January and new public attention to our opaque legislature with Question 1, we hope legislators will continue to be posed this question. Prepare yourself for a lot more answers like this.
--
Bonus: also in the news this week!
Still wondering about how lobbyists are so successful at shaping legislation at the State House, despite public opinion? Check out the Globe’s investigation this week of a legal loophole that might be helping them out:
- He lobbies legislative leaders. His wife is one of their biggest donors(paywall) by Matt Stout and Samantha Gross
--
Missed a Scoop or two? You can find a full archive of all past Saturday Scoops on our blog.
--
Syd’s Sprinkles: Graveyard of the 193rd Session — 100% Renewable Energy by 2045
This week we say “so long” to the 100% Renewable Energy by 2045 bill (H.3689). After being “sent to study”, this bill is currently sitting in the House Committee on Rules. Had this bill been passed, it would have:
- Required that all energy needs be met with renewables by 2045 (electricity by 2035)
- Improved energy efficiency to reduce consumption
- Prioritized a just transition for impacted workers & front line communities
As a state with an overwhelming Democratic presence in the legislature, along with many Democrats championing action to fight climate change, one would think that the state of Massachusetts would have passed countless bills just like this. Sadly, this is not the case.
This provision unfortunately didn’t make it into the big climate omnibus bill that’s still currently stalled out in informal session. Although Democratic leadership has had the opportunity to do a roll call vote on the clean energy bill a few times and have neglected to call in enough Democrats to have a quorum, Democrats don’t seem to acknowledge that they are the reason for the lack of a vote.
This past Monday, after the most recent attempt to bring the bill to a vote, Speaker of the House Mariano had said, “Because Republicans continue to block the passage of the clean energy bill, the House will take it up when we convene in a formal session to pass the economic development bill.”
Interesting …
Are we sure that the blocking of the passage of this bill is not because Democratic leadership is continually failing to encourage their party to create meaningful and swift change to address our climate?
Regardless, House leadership seems to believe that climate action cannot come until the next formal session (i.e., until the next economic development bill is filed), adding on to the delays in taking action on pressing issues that Massachusetts is increasingly becoming well-known for.
---
Take Action
VOTE! Polls are open Tuesday from 7AM-8PM
Tuesday is the last day to vote in the Presidential elections, as well as on numerous statewide candidates and questions. We encourage you to vote YES on all five questions:
- YES on 1: to audit the legislature
- YES on 2: to eliminate MCAS graduation requirement
- YES on 3: to allow rideshare drivers to unionize
- YES on 4: to decriminalize psilocybin
- YES on 5: to eliminate the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers
As for what's on the rest of your ballot, be sure to use the button below to find your polling location and review a sample ballot.
---
That's all for today folks, hopefully by this time next week we'll have some really good news for our movement to audit the legislature!
See you at the polls,
-Scotia
Scotia Hille (she/her)
Executive Director, Act on Mass